🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."